court-martial Tag Archives — Page 33 of 60 — Court-Martial Trial Practice Blog

Forensic science?

April 5, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

This is likely a duplicate post, but it’s worth it anyway. Here again is a piece from my old Crim. Law prof about forensics.

Paul C. Giannelli (Case Western Reserve University School of Law) (University of Illinois Law Review, Forthcoming, Case Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2010-6) has posted Daubert and Forensic Science: The Pitfalls of Law Enforcement Control of Scientific Research on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

In 2009, the National Academy of Sciences published a landmark report on forensic science: Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward. The Report represents one of the most important developments in forensic science since the establishment of the crime laboratory in the 1920s. Within months, Justice Scalia cited the report in Commonwealth v. Melendez-Diaz, noting that “[s]erious deficiencies have been found in the forensic evidence used in criminal trials” and “[f]forensic evidence is not uniquely immune from the risk of manipulation.” After two years of studying fingerprints, handwriting, ballistics, and other common forensic techniques, the Academy concluded that “some forensic science disciplines are supported by little rigorous systematic research to validate the discipline’s basic premises and techniques.” Indeed, “only nuclear DNA analysis has been rigorously shown to have the capacity to consistently, and with a high degree of certainty, demonstrate a connection between an evidentiary sample and a specific individual or source.”

SEAL case update

April 3, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Petty Officer Keefe’s trial is scheduled to commence in Iraq on 17 April 2010.

Here is an excellent review, by Dwight “ML” Sullivan at CAAFLog on the political posturing, pseudo-lawyering, and plain gaffs about these cases.

First SEAL prosecution imminent

Hasan update 5

April 1, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

TDTNews reports that:

Major Hasan may not have been transferred from hospital yesterday as thought was planned.

Mr. Galligan’s chief complaint is a lack of a mitigation specialist assigned to the defense prior to the Article 32, UCMJ, hearing.

Search & seizure

April 1, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Here’s a case from New Jersey of some interest, Stengart v. Loving Care Agency, Inc., 2010 N.J. LEXIS 241 (March 30, 2010).

[W]e find that Stengart had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the e-mails she exchanged with her attorney on Loving Care’s laptop.

Stengart plainly took steps to protect the privacy of those e-mails and shield them from her employer. She used a personal, password-protected e-mail account instead of her company e-mail address and did not save the account’s password on her computer. In other words, she had a subjective expectation of privacy in messages to and from her lawyer discussing the subject of a future lawsuit.

Up periscope

March 31, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

eNews Park Forest reports.

Last August, Travis Bishop refused to serve in Afghanistan. Having filed for Conscientious Objector (CO) status, Bishop, based at Fort Hood, Texas, in the US Army’s 57th Expeditionary Signal Battalion, was court-martialed and sentenced to 12 months in a military brig. He was released from the brig today.

Bishop served his time in Northwest Joint Regional Correctional Facility at Fort Lewis, Washington. This military brig is notorious for being a particularly difficult jail to serve time.

Supremes on Padilla v. Kentucky (and Denedo?)

March 31, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

The Supreme Court has issued an opinion in Padilla v. Kentucky, which addresses the duty to inform a client of the collateral consequences of the conviction on their immigrant status. I have posted on this in connection with United States v. Miller, 63 M.J. 452 (C.A.A.F. 2006) and other cases: here, here, here, and here. Here’s a link to Padilla on SCOTUSWiki. There are important consequences for military practitioners because as I have pointed out, there are thousands of green-card holders serving in the military. Here are a some highlights – more later.

Because counsel must inform a client whether his plea carries a risk of deportation, Padilla has sufficiently alleged that his counsel was constitutionally deficient. Whether he is entitled to relief depends on whether he has been prejudiced, a matter not addressed here.

So, to what extent does Padilla impact Denedo? Here is the SCOTUSWiki link to the Supreme Court litigation in Denedo. Here is a link to Denedo v. United States, 66 M.J. 114 (C.A.A.F. 2008). Here is a link to United States v. Denedo, in which N-MCCA denied Denedo relief again.

Off we go – another birther case

March 31, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Family Security Matters reports:

A decorated active duty Army medical officer, Lieutenant Colonel Terry Lakin (selected for promotion to Colonel), is calling upon his chain of command and his Congressional delegation to force President Obama to release his original birth certificate. He is the highest ranking officer to go public over this controversy and in late February, was notified that he is subject to near-term deployment to Afghanistan.

A website, SafeguardtheConstitution.com, outlines his efforts to seek the truth and prepare for his legal defense. You can make a tax deductible (?) contribution to his defense fund here.

Hasan update

March 31, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

KWTX.com reports that:

Defense attorney John Galligan said Tuesday he’s asking the Army to delay the hearing that will determine whether Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan will be tried by a military court for the Nov. 5 shooting rampage at Fort Hood’s Soldier Readiness Center that left 13 dead and 29 injured.

New Army case on discovery

March 30, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

ACCA has issued an opinion in United States v. Trigueros, 68 M.J. ___ (A. Ct. Crim. App. 2010). [Post updated to address a CAAFLog point, to add some links, and try to fix some formatting.]

This case involves the common problem of discovery of a victims mental health records. There are two troubling aspects to this case: the trial counsel never made any effort to determine whether or not information responsive to a specific discovery request was available, and when the prosecution has access – as they frequently do – how can it not be a violation of Article 46, UCMJ, for them to fail to turn over the information.

On 9 May 2007, trial counsel responded to the defense discovery request, stating in relevant part “[t]he Government is not aware of the existence of any such documentation regarding the records of the victims, Mrs. [JLC] and Mrs. [SCR].” In fact, trial counsel had not asked Mrs. SCR whether she had attended mental health counseling before responding to the defense discovery request.

Hennis update

March 30, 2010 | The Law Office of Philip D. Cave

Two items came across my screen at about the same time.

The FayObserver reports that:

The judge in the court-martial of Army Master Sgt. Timothy Hennis rejected defense calls for a mistrial this morning.